Forums:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
In the earlier days of TG fiction on the Internet, most stories seemed to be keen to include the specific physical description of the main TG character. Presumably because authors often were enjoying writing a favorite fantasy, and most of us have a very specific idea of the physical specifics we prefer to think about having in our fantasies. For many (most?) authors, it was usually the same from story to story, and nobody seemed to mind.
In latter years, most (by no means all) stories seem to avoid any specific physical description of the main TG character. Presumably because this avoids preventing any potential reader from delving into the author's story. If a reader's preferred physical description conflicts with the one in the story they've begun reading. Lack of description maybe helps the reader visualize themself as the transformee, and appearing whatever way the reader wishes. Like visualizing what one wants in a Rohrshach blot.
Does anyone feel like they agree with my observation about this trend over the years?
Does anyone feel like they have a good insight or explanation of why this trend is?
Note that the number of stories being posted on the Internet were relatively few back in say the mid 1990s, whether posted to usenet or to AOL before it even connected to the Internet, or all other venues, combined. For a while, one literally could keep up with reading every new story, and even at times be impatiently waiting for someone to post something new. In the years since the Internet has become almost synonymous with WWW, one after another Web site has come into existence catering to many TG audiences, it would be pretty inconceivable to try to keep up with the huge number being posted all the time in various quarters.
Perhaps, in former times, readers were just delighted that there was a TG story, any TG story, to read, even if it meant putting up with characters with physical descriptions not to some readers' tastes? Perhaps they had seen so few TG stories previous to the new Internet that they had not yet developed super-specific preferences of their own in this matter and didn't give it a thought?
Also, perhaps in more recent times, a lot of writers feel they must compete on the Internet for the attention of an audience and therefore must not risk including a specific that would be a turn-off for some of their potential audience, if they can possibly avoid it?
Perhaps none of the above. Maybe it is simply changing tastes?
Two little things to follow on.
If you asked for my vote: I really prefer when the author uses a fairly specific physical description. Especially if they're going to write any physical love scenes or erotic scenes. That sort of thing just doesn't fly well when it is too 'generic'.
It is very easy to download/copy a story to one's computer and quickly edit the main character's physical descriptors wherever mentioned, changing them to the specifics the reader would more enjoy. Using a search-and-replace feature to change from "blonde" to "brunette", "petite" to "buxom", "blue eyes" to "eyes like Liz Taylor's", and so on isn't that tricky. I often do this to stories. Sometimes I'll read through the story as posted first, then change it and reread right away. Sometimes I'll stop midway through a read and change it all. Sometimes I might skim just barely far enough to find what words we're using ("tall", "five feet eight inches", "long legs", or whatever) and then start search-and-replacing. I might keep the altered version to reread months or years later -- as we sometimes do with stories.
Most of you have probably never read any kind of post from me before, because I've only ever posted some comments (usually positive) to some authors' stories. Life is strange, and my intention when I created this account years ago was to post short stories of different lengths and to start almost right away. But that strangeness of life has led to still no stories after quite a long time, and never before starting a forum thread until now. Shocking! Please be kind if this topic has already been done to death or some other netiquette mistake. I just can't keep up.
(I have been writing, just not completing, yet. It may really and truly be "real soon now" that Annemarie's first story is posted.)
Annemarie
Sugar and spice, and everything nice
That is what girls are made of
Let's Get Physical....
...I tend to include descriptions that help the reader see more than just the physical, you know? For example:
Tony was becoming mesmerized. Linda wasn’t a beautiful girl in the usual sense of the word, but Tony saw just how much beauty almost exuded from her, like her soapy aroma and the wisp of a few hairs that fell across her eyes.
“I’m going to play that again. Place your hands on mine when I play and see if you can feel the keyboard talking back? You know….the piano responding to me?†He nodded and she turned her head. He looked at her profile and he noticed a slight raise on the bridge of the nose and a scar under her right eye. Idiosyncrasy can be attractive in the right context. He placed his hands on hers and she began playing.
Hopefully the reader 'sees' Linda here for more than just a teenager sitting on a piano bench?
Physical interaction?
Terri took her hand off Joey's chest. She opened her own robe, revealing her own lack. She took Joey's hand and placed both of their hands on her own chest over her own heart. A chest that was no longer feminine, but flat and scarred. She took Joey's other hand and placed it on her own face. She leaned forward and kissed her once again on the cheek and said softly,
"It's okay; we're really not so different, are we?"
Not very 'sexy' in the traditional sense, but the physical description here serves to show the depth of the acceptance of someone considered damaged?
I've gotten much more descriptive at times, and some times I've provided no physical description whatsoever. I suppose it all depends, which is pretty much what I experience when I read other writer's work; how it fits into what their story is saying? Just my take on how I write.
Love, Andrea Lena
Good examples.
Those are good examples of in-depth descriptions done right. Talking about personal traits without describing the size of her breasts, her exact height in inches, or the precise length of her hair.
Interesting examples
Those are great examples, Drea, because they are interesting. With you, the characters are meant to be fully dimensioned, and the stories have meaning beyond entertainment. (For now, I aim at entertainment.)
It's very generous of you to share your personal writing for inspection on 'the exam table'. And, it's good writing. :)
Annie
"If you could create for yourself any name at all, what would it be?" A group of us were recently asked that question just for fun. Being a closeted crossdresser, I just wondered what they would say if they only knew. "Annemarie!" Not really, because I choose to spend lots of time as a man and am happy that way. But still. And then one of the women said that she would choose "Annemarie". Sigh. No one asked her which spelling.
It's advice I'd taken to heart...
A great writer once told me that the best descriptions lets people use their own imagination. Instead of describing in intimate detail what a person looked like (She had long blond hair, 36-C breasts, a cute upturned nose, she was 5 foot 8, etc.) you provide the basics and let the reader imagine the person on their own (she was a tall girl, more beautiful than I'd ever seen before, her golden hair shone in the sunlight, etc.).
To each their own, though. To me, the best writing is when details are left a little obscure and let me fill in the blanks. It gets a bit boring when several paragraphs are drafted detailing stuff I don't care about. Take Tolkien, he often fills his paragraphs with descriptions of things that have no relevance to the story. A clear example being the description he gave of a fox who spied Sam and Frodo leaving Hobbiton for Rivendell. It had nothing to do with the story yet Tolkein felt compelled to write about it.
Some people love reading these details. Others don't. Personally, I think it's an indication of better writing skill if you aren't being overly detailed in your descriptions. Saying someone is 178 centimetres is unnecessary and breaks immersion. When you sum up a person's appearance in your head do you often say to yourself "Oh my, he's 6'5!" or do you say "Gosh, he's tall, I have too look up to talk to him." Not to say those who include in-depth descriptions are unskilled. But it does kill the immersion of the stories.
I suppose it is all personal preference though. Perhaps the reason these overly descriptive writings are disappearing is because the quality of writing is improving. Or, perhaps it's because more writing is delving away from erotica. The earlier days of writing seemed to focus on sex and sexual experiences. In those cases, a writer probably needs to be extra descriptive. I don't know. I prefer non-erotic stories. If I'm reading something and it has a sex scene I'll usually skip over those paragraphs where it details it.
Oh
Oh. You make a really good point about stories moving away from erotica!
I'm with you about lengthy or overly specific detail not being good. I'm wondering if the real bottom line on that is still how skilfully written description is, and then how long it is or how specific are guidelines to help one find a way to write them well. Some writers can break those guidelines and the description might really work. Or, some kinds of stories can break the guidelines and it might fit well in the context of that story written that way. This isn't to disagree with you, but to agree with you and then speculate on whether/how there might be a little more, oh, complexity as well. More to the story, so to speak. :)
Thank you for the really insightful and thoughtful post, Celynn. I'm just getting started reading the eight posts to the thread so far and yours is such a good contribution.
Annie
It's true.
As Andrea excellently points out above, details have their place. I pretty much generalized, which is what I more or less had to do short of writing a 1600 word essay on the subject. I completely agree with you here, it's a complex issue open to anyone's interpretation. If done right detailed descriptions don't have to break immersion. I guess it's all a matter of how skilled authors are at crafting their tales. Though I'm still a strong advocate of obscuring the information a bit; as you speculated above, it allows anyone to relate to the story.
Physical descriptions
Part of it may simply be people learning more of the writer's craft. If you study writing, you get "show, don't tell" and "strict viewpoint" shoved at you like it's the Word of God or something. That makes stopping the story to describe a character an "author intrusion" or an "infodump," both of which are to be avoided like a plague carrier. That's not to say these are right in any universal way; it's just that they seem to be the current fashion in teaching writing.
A few words here and there can be used to flesh out a character as well as a paragraph.
Xaltatun
Oh yes
Oh yes, show don't tell is the big, big mantra. I like to think one can give the specific description by "showing", but it is open to question how well written it is to do that sort of thing. "He brushed a stray lock of her many blonde layers from her eye," doesn't flow all that naturally and it isn't the most economical/elegant, certainly. But it does paint more of a visual image.
Could it be that towards the TS end of the spectrum the authors and readers tend to be looking more for something about the human story, while over here near the more CD end of the spectrum we're much more interested in seeing a picture, getting a visual? It's about image and appearance? But for people writing or reading about very real and important issues and experiences of a transitioning person, image is of course important but not nearly as essential to why one is interested in the story? Or is that differentiation still begging the question of whether a reader is going to be "better" off with whatever imagery they project in their own mind, or with imagery indicated and described for them by the writer?
A friend calls the sort of acting that shows as little personality as possible the "Tyrone Power school of acting". I think Harrison Ford is a good example. The idea is that by imposing as little as possible of the visual imagery and other things that are unique to that actor, the viewer projects their own internal imagery and ideas onto the character. I think that's a lot of hooey and find it to be wooden acting about 99% of the time. But a lot of people, especially the experts, like that kind of acting so what does someone like me know?
Yet another insightful post! Yaaay. And how exotic sounding is your name? It says something nice, and interesting, about you to choose an adventurous name like that.
Annemarie
Physical descriptions might
Physical descriptions might be out of favor with some authors, but to me, seeing a visual of a character, or a word picture makes a story better.
May Your Light Forever Shine
Thank you.
Thank you.
To be used, as needed
For me, physical descriptions are like hand grenades, something to be carefully employed when needed to move forward. If it advances the story line or adds to a character's character, then by all means describe the physical traits. Otherwise, allow the reader to create their own image.
Of course, I often cheat by seeking out a photo or work of art for use in the title box that fits the character such as I did with Caitlin and Rachel. But that was only because the items selected fit the character to a 'T.' In Caitlin's case, the careworn expression is perfect.
Nancy Cole
"You may be what you resolve to be."
T.J. Jackson
Useful comments on usage
Thank you, Nancy, because your guidelines come from a writer with prolific experience, whose work is widely enjoyed.
Just the other day I was reading about a very successful writer (Heinlein) often setting a picture in front of his desk while he wrote. A picture (or sometimes pictures) of someone who could help inspire his own vision of not only what the character looked like but also who the character was. Perhaps what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, meaning that if a picture is good enough for the author then it is good enough for the readers as well. I usually really like it when a story has at least one picture. TG story, that is.
Annie
There is an Internet meme called Godwin's Law, usenet newsgroups days. It says that all useful discussion on a thread has ended if someone posts any reference to either Nazis or...Heinlein. Hope I didn't just jinx this thread! ;)
Truthfully.
I describe a character completely or I don't. If the story demands a full description, it gets it. If not, use the reader's imagination to your advantage.
Readers like to see themselves in the stories they read unless something has already been shown that won't let that happen.
But even then, give insights, show the character's internal, emotional, and mental state, too.
Even if you have given a very exact physical description, you haven't delved into the person behind that description.
That's where it tends to get hard.
But fun.
Maggie
What can be said?
Maggie, you sum it all up very pithily but not at all tersely. And you add the emphasis showing that the choice is always just one of those creative choices the writer can use as a tool and needn't always be the same choice. You scared me when you said it gets hard at a certain point, but then you say, "fun" which is just so perfect a way of looking at things! :)
This has turned into quite a little symposium of writers and readers I like, enjoy, and respect, including you, of course. I'm not worthy! Speaking of adding a picture, when I first saw your profile pic it didn't match whatever vague image I had built up, but it really does fit you and it seems to enhance your stories to have a clearer notion of how the author sees herself too. The Kindle goes to a "screensaver" when it powers down, and many of those screensaver images are portraits of famous authors. Those pictures have done nothing but enhance my understanding of them as humans as well as authors. Authors are humans, too! LOL
Someone is going to tell me to get a profile pic posted. :-/
Annemarie
I generally...
I generally end up giving most major characters a complete physical description....... eventually. It's always dropped as little tidbits here and there as it makes sense from the viewpoint of the character telling the story to mention it. Or viewpoints in stories that I tell using more than one characters POV.
I try to make it as unobtrusive to the reader as possible... I don't really know if I succeed or not.
Abigail Drew.
It seems to work very well
I've joined a lot of others in enjoying your writing, Abigail. Sorry I don't have any specific examples from writing of how well it worked, but the fact that it was unobtrusive enough that it is hard to recall or find anything now and that lots of people enjoy your writing says it all. They do tell us to show not tell, and it is what I hope to achieve, and the way you describe is maybe the key technique(?)
If they want us to show not tell, why do they tell us that instead of show us? ;)
Annie
Thanksgiving
Since it is Thanksgiving here in the U.S. I am very thankful that this thread has drawn the attention of such wonderful posters. It has exceeded my most optimistic hopes. Thank you, everyone!
I'll check back again soon.
Annemarie
"I mean, what's the good of little girls, when they send such heavy letters?"
"Well, they're not much good, certainly," I said, rather sadly."
-Rev. Charles Dodgson aka Lewis Carroll, in an 1875 letter to a young friend
Description without detail
One of my favorite authors is Robert Heinlein.
One of his novels is more than a little relevant to those of us who frequent BCTS - I Will Fear No Evil. I'm not going to give away the plot in case there is someone here who hasn't read it (and you SHOULD read it if you haven't).
In that novel we meet a character named Eunice. Eunice is described on several occasions, but it wasn't until the sixth or seventh time I re-read the story that I realised that RAH never actually tells you what she looks like.
He tells you that she's beautiful (many times). You can infer that she is very fit (she does a lot of yoga). But he NEVER once tells you what color her eyes are, or her hair, or any detail which might conflict with the image that the reader is building in his/her mind's eye.
Hell - he never even tells you what her skin color is.
And he does it so well that you don't miss the details at all. Instead Eunice can be exactly what the reader thinks she should look like.
So sometimes descriptions get in the way.
On the same subject, but a different vein, are descriptions of items. In that we're talking about TG fiction I'll zero in on that.
Consider that type of transgendered person the author might be, and what kind of writing the story might be. Most of us who write TG fiction start writing for ourselves to some extent. In other words we're writing what we want to read. As our writing evolves we may start writing a more general fiction.
But consider this: If the author is a Fetishist TV who's writing one of his/her first stories then there's a good chance the story is gonna be well populated with descriptions of the clothing.
Here's an example from a story a friend asked me to write for her many years ago:
At this closer range I saw that she was not, in actuality, as tall as I had initially believed. Surprisingly, considering that we were aboard ship, she was wearing boots with heels more suitable to a stage in France. Each foot was lifted by a five inch ebon pillar which tapered to a needle slim stiletto. Clearly an effective weapon in more ways than one. Her boots were of the supplest black kidskin which clung glovelike to her firm calves. Such was the degree to which the boots conformed to her leg that each firm muscle stood visible. Above the knee the leather relaxed its grip, rising some inches thence to fold over in a broad cuff.
(I'll note that the somewhat stilted tone of the description is an attempt to sound 'period' given that it was supposed to be 1643 at the time :D
That description went down extremely well, btw, with it's intended audience. She loved it!)
A pre-op TS, however, may well be much less likely to be writing fiction with sky high stiletto heels and skin tight clothing, etc.
Also - as our hypothetical Fetishist TV author gets older might she start broadening her writing ... less focus on the sexy clothes and more on the other aspects of the story?
So what I'm thinking is this - are we seeing fewer descriptions because the authors are maturing (which is nicer than saying getting older :P ) and fewer of us are writing fantasies which stir our prurient sides?